This is a completely bogus interpretation of campaign finance regulations. By this logic, any candidate could have a campaign advertisement filmed and produced for free if they used only volunteer services. Or any other electioneering activity for that matter.

Hmm, this is similar to the loophole the Mercury uses to allow smoking in their venue: since they use volunteer labor and consider themselves a members-only club, they don't have to observe the smoking ban.

The interpretation of the law is up to whatever side you're on, I suppose. I'll claim neutrality on this issue until I have more information.

So, trolls, you are saying that volunteer door-to-door, election day phone calling, stuffing envelopes, etc., because they could be paid activities, should all be considered reportable contributions?

So, you are going to tell the 80 yo phone calling grannies that they have to report their exact hours to the government so a value can be assessed and limitations adhered too?

God damn, the GOP loves government control of everything but their money into the pockets of congressmen.

Chetob--What are you talking about? The control freaks are the Seattle nanny-state liberals who think they have to control everyone's lives.

Darcy Burner keeps showing she's a novice--and possibly developing a record of incompetence.

And who uses a quote from a campaign manager in a press release?!?!? Shouldn't the statement have come directly from Darcy? I wasn't impressed by the poor grammar either.

Patrick - no dangling either....bad boy....

Also, I wasn't impressed by the poor grammar.

or

As well, I was not impressed........

This is not about low-end volunteers, Chetbob. Great appeal to emotion on your part. People and organizations with tons of money to burn (like, say, wealthy lobbyists and special interest groups) shouldn't offer services that involve a sizeable investment (tens of thousands of dollars and up) without reporting it as a campaign contribution. Otherwise, it's a loophole that defeats the purpose of campaign finance reforms.

The complaint filed by the Republicans doesn't have anything to do with a volunteer effort by a single individual, which is what the FEC regulation referenced by the Burner campaign relates to. The point of contention here is that the Burner campaign may have taken illegal or excessive contributions from the Eastside Democracy for America PAC. It doesn't matter if this PAC is run by volunteers or didn't charge for its services - they were prominently named by the Burner campaign as the organization responsible for the event and subsequent campaign video. They are an organization, not an individual.

Moreover, it's unclear whether this Eastside group is even a proper PAC, which could mean that the Burner campaign took corporate donations -- a serious violation of the law.

It looks to be a pretty open and shut case. Upon viewing the evidence, it just seems clear that someone at the Burner campaign neglected to study Federal Campaign Finance 101.

Pugetpol... you don't know what the fuck you are talking about... or maybe you do, and you're just intentionally talking out of your ass. (Come to think of it, I'm guessing the latter.)

I happen to know the guy who made the video, and he made it as a volunteer, without any compensation whatsoever. So you can claim it came from Eastside DFA if you want, but it doesn't matter. No money changed hands, no contributions were made, and nothing had to be reported.

Sorry, but that's the truth. And if anybody believes that anybody but a hack, GOP troll would be hanging out here on Slog spewing Republican talking points like you are, well... I've got a bridge to sell you.

Goldy, whether Pugetpol has a point or is talking out of his ass, name-calling is adolescent and simply reinforces stereotypes about liberals (being whiny, throwing around generalized insults in lieu of providing strong arguments). I'm seeing way too much name calling and not enough logic. And this goes for a lot of other people, commenters and Slog authors alike. It's getting tiresome and just makes your arguments look less and less credible.

This is a completely bogus interpretation of campaign finance regulations. By this logic, any candidate could have a campaign advertisement filmed and produced for free if they used only volunteer services. Or any other electioneering activity for that matter.

Actually, they could. A lot of small campaigns who can't afford professionally done commercials have them done by volunteers. Maybe you should leave interpreting campaign finance laws to people who know what they're talking about?

If Andrew made videos for a living(ie: he was a professional), it would count as an in-kind contribution much the same way attorneys performing legal services would count as an in-kind donation and would fall under the federal contribution limits. Ditto for a professional web developer creating webpages, etc, etc.

However, Andrew is *not* a professional cameraman so it would count as a volunteer activity the same way people making phone calls or canvassing would count as volunteer activities.

Moreover, it's unclear whether this Eastside group is even a proper PAC, which could mean that the Burner campaign took corporate donations -- a serious violation of the law.

If it weren't a "proper PAC", they wouldn't magically incorporate into a business.

While certain particulars of campaign finance law are arcane, most of it(especially for a Congressional campaign) is pretty straightforward and this falls in that category. You'd have to be feigning stupidity or actually be stupid to think there was a violation here.

Washington State Republicans have discovered there's no penalty for making frivolous or fraudulent charges (Guber court case, KC registration challenges, law school-gate, etc) so they're going to continue to throw as much shit on the wall as possible until something sticks or we're buried over our heads in it.

Probably the latter.

Gomez --- I think you need to chant some obscene slogans thousand of times a day for six months.

You need liberating. You sound stuffy and constrained. Molded by converntion.

Modern politics changed in
America when the
Berkley kids started riots over the use of fuck on campus --- The Free Speech Movement?

And seemingly - we live in logger and fisherboy land. Swearing is an art in older Puget lore.....

Cat: learn to write. Hell, learn to spell.

As for the Free Speech Movement, learn some history. It was not about the use of "fuck." It was about the right to protest, particularly to protest the war in Vietnam.

To summarize: first you should learn to spell, then you should learn to write, and then you should learn some history. Get those things done, and, heck, we'd all be tickled pink to know what you're thinking in that tiny lil' ol' head.

Pugethack: the words say what the words mean, and the words in the law are clear. The question, then, is what was actually involved in making the video, which could have been assembled by any half-bright undergrad with a camera, a tripod, a copy of iMovie, and a bit of design sense.

Is that the battle that you really want to fight?

I'll humor your remark, Cat: I meant that, instead of calling people GOP-trolls and hacks, maybe people should focus on making a convincing argument based on actual logic. It's really not that hard, yet when it comes to defending the anointed candidate (D-Kirkland) the only retort people seem willing to use is to call people names.

And I do more than enough swearing and cursing in my everyday life, kthx.

CD318 - Fuck you and your junior high, ninny boy, Eastside, mindset.

Early free spech at Berkley was all about free expression on campus, and all that entwined with strong anti-war stuff over time --- and many other rad issues of the times.

For a blog I should be concerned about a typo, god, you middle class complusives are stupid. Do not be afraid of mommie or teacher here at SLOG. It is OK to pick your nose while typing, and you can even fart loudly.

Patronizing pig.